No one can attain the Absolute Truth by argument. One may be very expert in logic, and another person may be even more expert in the art of argument. Because there is so much word jugglery in logic, one can never come to the real conclusion about the Absolute Truth by argument. The followers of the Vedic principles understand this. However, it is seen here that Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu defeated the Buddhist philosophy by argument. Those who are preachers in ISKCON will certainly meet many people who believe in intellectual arguments. Most of these people do not believe in the authority of the Vedas. Nevertheless, they accept intellectual speculation and argument. Therefore the preachers of Kåñëa consciousness should be prepared to defeat others by argument, just as Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu did. In this verse it is clearly said, tarkei khaëòila prabhu. Lord Çré Caitanya Mahäprabhu put forward such a strong argument that the Buddhists could not counter Him to establish their cult.
Their first principle is that the creation has always existed. But if this were the case, there could be no theory of annihilation. The Buddhists maintain that annihilation, or dissolution, is the highest truth. If the creation eternally exists, there is no question of dissolution or annihilation. This argument is not very strong because by practical experience we see that material things have a beginning, a middle and an end. The ultimate aim of the Buddhist philosophy is to dissolve the body. This is proposed because the body has a beginning. Similarly, the entire cosmic manifestation is a gigantic body, but if we accept that it always exists, there can be no question of annihilation. Therefore the attempt to annihilate everything in order to attain zero is an absurdity. By our own practical experience we have to accept the beginning of creation, and when we accept the beginning, we must accept a creator. Such a creator must possess an all-pervasive body, as pointed out in the Bhagavad-gétä (13.14):
(an example from CC Madhya 9.49 purp)

Thank you.

The basic principle of establishing the authority of sastra seems to be this:

1. Humans are not omniscient.
2. In order to truly know how to act in our best interest, we would need to be omniscient.
3. It therefore behooves us to accept instruction given by an omniscient authority.

4. Since we are not omniscient, we might make mistakes in what we deem "omniscient authority" or we might make mistakes in carrying out instructions given to us.
5. God is magnanimous, our mistakes are not fatal, and we have the ability to learn from our mistakes.
6. We should always strive for the highest instruction and for perfection.

The first three steps are general (sometimes used by Christians as well, for example), but the latter three seem to be more specific to a Vedic outlook (meainstream Christians wouldn't accept them).


Comments?

VEDA:

> Can we establish, via anumana, that the authority of the Vedas is superior to those of other scriptures - such as the Bible, Book of Mormon?[br]

[br]Yes. Desa-kala-patra principle (SB 1.9.9) applies anumana. Bible's OT was specifically revealed for Jews in ancient Egypt and Israel.
(e.g. it mentions levirate forbidden for Kali yuga.) Animal sacrifices are for people in lower gunas. Etc.[br]
[br]Anumana shows that BoM is derived from KJV Bible.

But in the end, it does come down to a person's individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?[br]

> But in the end, it does come down to a person's individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?

Sure. But in the absence of sabda, there's a competition of various anumanas.

VEDA:

> But in the end, it does come down to a person's individual choice to accept such anumana conclusions, does it not?

Sure. But in the absence of sabda, there's a competition of various anumanas.

I have to admit that I am not comfortable with this outlook that so much should depend on my choice.[br]
[br]I really wish there would be an objective way to settle matters such as "who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna or Jehowah", or "is there reincarnation" and so on. A person's views on this should be objective, and not a matter of one's choice, should they not?

Kula-pavana:

[quote]

Baker:

I really wish there would be an objective way to settle matters such as "who is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna or Jehowah", or "is there reincarnation" and so on. A person's views on this should be objective, and not a matter of one's choice, should they not?

These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry. Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu for example sets the rules for comparing the various manifestations of the Divine and applies them to Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, a perfect human being, etc. In the end Lord Krsna turnes out to be the Supreme. -----------------

Reincarnation is pretty much a proven fact, recognized by all natural religions. You have to try very hard to ignore all the evidence pointing to it.[/quote] Objective? I would say that reading Brihad bhagavatamrita is as objective as you go towards the comparative religion. Seriously recommended reading.

Baker:

[quote]

Kula-pavana:

These matters CAN be settled in an impartial way once you have a set of criteria that you agree apply to this situation. You have to first set the rules of inquiry.

Sure, but agreeing to apply a particular set of criteria (as opposed to some other), setting the rules of inquiry already is an act of partiality.[br][/quote]

Not really. If you are consciously setting the rules so that one party is more likely to win - that is partiality. If you are just trying to impartially decide based on general, broadly applicable principles - that is impartiality. It is really not that complicated.